VT Pop: Vermont Public Opinion and Polling

VTPOP

Vermont Politics

(This post was co-written with John Graves, summer intern at the Castleton Polling Institute and student at Mill River Union High School, Clarendon, VT)

With the Vermont state primary behind us, the Castleton Polling Institute went back to the July VPR Poll to explore the relationship between the candidates’ relative favorability and their share of the primary votes. Without developing a “likely voter” model (which in low-turnout elections becomes very difficult), we simply used the favorability ratings from all of the respondents who identified themselves as either Democrat or Republican and as potential primary voters.

Using the principle of transitivity from rational choice theory, we made the following presumptions:

If Respondent A rated Candidate X more favorably than they rated Candidate X’s primary opponents, then Respondent A would choose Candidate X. Thus the probability of Respondent A’s vote going to Candidate X would be 1, and the probability of Respondent A’s vote going to Candidate Y or Z is 0.

If Respondent A rated all candidates the same, Respondent A is equally likely to choose any candidate. Thus, the vote probability in a three-way race is Candidate X = .33, Candidate Y = .33, and Candidate Z = .33.

If Respondent A rated Candidate X and Candidate Y more favorably than they rated Candidate Z, then Respondent A is equally likely choose X or Y but not Z. Thus the probability of Respondent A’s vote going to Candidate X would be .5, to Candidate Y is .5, and the probability of Respondent A’s vote going to Candidate Z is 0.

Even if Respondent A rated all of the candidate’s poorly, if Respondent A was to cast a vote in a rational manner, the vote would go to whomever was rated highest, on a relative scale.

Additional presumptions:

Respondents are more likely to vote for a candidate with whom with they have at least passing familiarity than for one they don’t recognize.

We presume, however, that a respondent will choose a candidate unknown to him over one whom the respondent has rated unfavorably.

Thus, in order of likelihood to get respondents’ votes, here are the scores assigned to each respondent for each of the candidates:

1. Very favorable rating and known to the respondent
2. Somewhat favorable rating and known to the respondent
3. Known to the respondent, but the respondent has no definite opinion either favorable or unfavorable
4. Unknown to the respondent
5. Somewhat unfavorable rating and known to the respondent
6. Very unfavorable rating and known to the respondent

After figuring out which candidate or candidates we thought each subject was going to vote for we tried to control for the most likely voters by looking at party affiliation and how likely each subject self-reported that they would be to vote in the primary. We concluded that the most representative sample of likely voters would be subjects who were affiliated with the given party and who also said they were at least somewhat likely to vote in the primary. This formed a group of 69 Republicans and 138 Democrats from the poll that were predicted to vote in the primary, representing 11.9% and 23.7% respectively of the registered voters from the VPR poll. These numbers are slightly higher than the actual 10.3% and 16.2% turnout in the actual election, but that is to be expected with the polling response bias for citizens interested in politics.

Figure 1 illustrates the percent of the vote each candidate is projected to receive based on the relative favorability ratings; in addition, the chart compares the projected vote against the actual vote received in the respective primary races.

As Figure 1 illustrates, our model did a good job at predicting both parties’ gubernatorial primary elections, with both predictions within the margin of error for the actual results, with the exception of Peter Galbraith’s projected vote total, which was lower than the model projected. In the Republican race our model predicted Scott to win with 64 percent of the vote, very close to the actual 60 percent. The model also predicted that Minter would receive 48 percent of the Democratic vote—very close to the 49 percent she actually received. It is possible—although we lack any empirical evidence—that the model’s over-prediction of Galbraith could be explained by some strategic voting, voters choosing their favorite between the two front runners out of concern that Galbraith could not win.

On the other hand, the model missed predicting the Democratic primary outcome for the Lieutenant Governor’s race, picking Smith instead of Zuckerman as the likely winner. One possible reason for this difference between the model and results could be because of a change in public perception from the time the poll was completed until Election Day. This seems especially possible in this race given the late endorsement from the extremely popular Bernie Sanders who might have changed the minds of some Vermont voters. This difference illustrates the difficulty in predicting election results in advance in low turnout elections, especially when only using favorability rating as a proxy for whom subjects will vote. It is also possible that Progressives—who would not have self-identified as Democrats and who therefore would not be included in the model—crossed over to the Democratic primary to support Zuckerman.

The VPR Poll in July 2016 asked Vermonters about the candidates. Respondents were asked if they have heard of each candidate for governor or lieutenant governor; for each candidate that a respondent has heard of, the respondents were asked if their opinion of that candidate was favorable or unfavorable.

The data from these two questions allowed us to assess how well a candidate is known and whether those who know the candidate have a favorable or unfavorable opinion (or no opinion at all). This is what a campaign is all about: to introduce or reintroduce one’s candidate to the voters and to create a favorable image for that candidate among those voters. The successful campaigns approach the election with a large percentage of the public holding favorable views of their candidates. As the Vermont state primary approaches, the candidate with the greatest level of name recognition is current Lieutenant Governor and gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott. Of the 86 percent of Vermont adults who recognize Scott, 58 percent hold a favorable view of him, while only 13 percent hold an unfavorable view—giving Scott a net favorability score of 45. (Net favorability is percentage of respondents with an unfavorable opinion of the candidate subtracted from the percentage of respondents with a favorable opinion; those with no opinion are not included in the calculation.) The only gubernatorial candidate with a higher net favorability score—higher by a mere and insignificant 1 point—was Sue Minter; however, only 63 percent of Vermont adults have heard of Minter.

The following graph shows the relative awareness and net favorability for all of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor.

Of course, the job of a campaign is to improve the level of public awareness and public approval for one’s candidate. In September 2015, the Castleton Poll asked Vermonters about a number of candidate who were potentially running for governor. The following table shows the changes from fall of 2015 to July 2016.

Table 1. Changes in Name Recognition and Favorability from September 2015 to July 2016

The campaign of Bruce Lisman made the most traction in getting the candidate’s name recognized by potential voters, going from having only 21 percent knowing who he is in September to 61 percent this July. Unfortunately, being known as a candidate takes a hit on one’s favorability ratings, as LIsman’s net favorability dropped from 13 to 3. This is what hit Phil Scott, who had the biggest drop in net favorability from September 2015 to July 2016. Of course, Scott had such high favorables it was inevitable that, as a candidate, those numbers would come down.

Randy Brock, a former gubernatorial candidate, has lost ground running for lieutenant governor in both awareness and favorability.

Sue Minter has made the greatest gains in favorability, picking up a net 20 points and increasing her awareness by 25 percentage points. While she is, in July 2016, a little less known than her primary opponent Matt Dunne, her net favorability is comparably higher. This sets up a potentially close race for the Democratic nomination. The victor will likely be the one who mobilizes supporters best with the better get-out-the-vote effort.

Heading into the Vermont state primaries held in August, the VPR Poll asked Vermonters about the candidates. Respondents were asked if they have heard of each candidate for governor or lieutenant governor; for each candidate that a respondent has heard of, the respondents were asked if their opinion of that candidate was favorable or unfavorable. The best known candidate, by polling numbers, was Phil Scott (R), who was known to 86 percent of the general public, 73 percent of which had an opinion of Lieutenant Governor Scott. In other words, only 62 percent of the general public had an opinion on the best known of the candidates for governor. The best known Democratic candidate, Matt Dunne, is known to 73 percent of Vermont adults, 66 percent of which have an opinion of Mr. Dunne—meaning that just under half of Vermont adults (48 percent) had an opinion about Dunne. The number are lower for all other candidates, including Shap Smith (D) who has served as the Speaker of the House in the Vermont legislature. The following table shows the relative proportions of Vermont adults without opinions about the men and women running for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

Percent of Vermont Adults with an Opinion of the Candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor

Of course, there is no qualifications of knowledge about the candidates in order to vote, and it is only necessary to know about the candidate one supports. However, if elections are about choice, it would be ideal if voters knew more about the choices available to them on the ballot.

Recently Energy Independent Vermont commissioned a poll conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, and Associates (FM3), a public opinion research group that works primarily with Democratic candidates and a wide array of governments, non-profits, and corporations. The poll interviewed 600 registered Vermont voters, and although little additional information about the methodology was published, the report claimed to represent “likely voters” defined by those “who said they are likely to vote” (from Polhamus, Mike. “Poll finds support for carbon tax, other climate change steps.” VTDigger. Accessed online on July 12, 2016). Self-reported likelihood to vote is a notoriously biased number, even in the best of elections; this is what pollsters call social desirability bias.

The poll reported 65 percent of respondents saying that they are likely to vote in the state primary; the voter turnout in the last gubernatorial primary election without an incumbent (2010) was only 24 percent, and in 2014 the turnout was only 9 percent. Given prior elections, 65 percent is an unrealistic projection for state primary turnout.

While I admire FM3’s attempt to poll in these important primaries, I contend that a much larger sample is necessary. It may be counter-intuitive to some, but polling is much easier in large populations than in small populations. What is most difficult about the projections of the population voting in primaries is that the parameters of these populations are generally unknown. We do not have exit poll data to tell us about the general patterns of state primary voters. The best indicator we have for whether or not someone will vote in the state primary is one’s past voting history, which can be obtained from voting records. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

When the voting population is small, the danger of using past voting behavior is that mobilization of just a small number of new voters—voters not picked up in a sample frame including only past voters—can make a large impact. In other words, a strong get-out-the-vote (GOTV) movement can overcome name recognition, advertising, and direct mail disadvantages.

The FM3 poll may be right on target, but it is more likely that the respondents in the late June poll will not look like the voting population in the August 9th election because, unless this is a fortunately unrepresentative sample of registered voters, most of these respondents are not likely to vote in the state primary.

Finding that a wide majority of Vermonters (74 percent) support the establishment of an ethics commission is not surprising. What’s not to support? When the Castleton Poll (Sept. 2016) asked Vermonters whether they would support or oppose creating an ethics commission, there was no context about the need for or cost of creating such a body; so naturally, it is not surprising that most would support such a benign concept.

In that same poll, however, Castleton asked about the perceived need for an ethics panel. This is a very different concept, of course. Here is the precise wording of each question:

1. Right now, Vermont state government is considering whether or not to establish an independent panel to investigate potential ethics violations where state officials are involved. Would you support or oppose the establishment of a state ethics commission in Vermont?
2. Some have argued that as a small state, Vermont does not have the problems of other states, and therefore an independent ethics commission is not necessary and would only be a bother. Others have argued that Vermont needs an independent oversight body to address concerns about the ethical behavior of public officials. With whom do you most agree?

We used a split-sample approach—asking a random selection of half of the panel on question and the other half the other question—to keep the concepts separated. The rationale for the split sample is that if a respondent receive both question in the order above, once someone said that they support a commission, they would likely be compelled to say that the commission was needed; if someone opposed establishing an ethics panel, they would not likely then respond that they think one is needed. Alternatively, if we reversed the order of the two, those suggesting a need for a panel would be hard pressed not to support establishing one, and vice versa. By asking all respondents only one of the two questions, we have decoupled the concepts, and by assigning the questions to respondents randomly, we have removed any bias for one question or concept over another.

I believe that the most relevant statistic is the percent of Vermonters who feel that an ethics panel is needed (67 percent). Two-thirds of all those receiving the question agreed with the notion that a commission to “address concerns about the ethical behavior of public officials” is needed. While the number of Vermonters who believe an ethics commission is needed in their state is lower than the number who would support the concept of establishing a commission, it still represents a large majority.

In light of the EB-5 story (http://vtdigger.org/eb5-an-investigation/) suggesting possible corruption in handling investments, it is reasonable to expect that the levels of support and the feeling that such a commission is needed have both risen (although without empirical verification, this is mere speculation on my part).

On February 22, 2016, Vermont Public Radio released the results of a statewide presidential primary and issues poll conducted by us, the Castleton Polling Institute. The poll came out of the field on February 17 in order to weight the data and give VPR reporters time to prepare stories putting the polling results in context, and VPR wanted to use that time to reflect on where Vermonters stood in advance of 2016 Town Meeting Day and a presidential primary that was to feature a US Senator from Vermont in the Democratic primary and a topsy-turvy Republican race.

Since the election, I have taken some time to reflect on the poll and how well it reflected the public’s primary preferences; I’m conducting a review of our polling to assess to what extent we had a clear picture of the Vermont likely voters 12 days prior to the presidential primary and whether or not our likely voter model needs an overhaul.

Voter Turnout

We used the 2008 presidential primaries as a basis for estimating voter turnout in 2016, since 2008 is the most recent election where no incumbent (neither president nor vice-president) was seeking the nomination in either party. In addition, we made a presumption that the Sanders’ campaign had created an excitement among younger voters akin to the 2008 Obama campaign. Our poll reinforced these assumptions, showing a high degree of support for Sanders among younger voters and showing that the percentage of votes cast in the Democratic primary would near (but not reach) the level of 2008. Sixty-six percent of poll respondents said that they would take a Democratic ballot, and 22 percent said that they would take a Republican ballot in the open primary; when we adjust for 11 percent that hadn’t yet decided in which primary they would vote (eliminating the 11 percent “unsure” and distributing that percent proportionately among the Democratic and Republican primaries) we had 75 percent in the Democratic primary and 25 percent in the Republican primary. The adjusted values overestimated the Democratic share of primary voters (69 percent) and underestimated the Republican share (31 percent) by 6 percentage points. It appears, given the volatility and excitement surrounding the Republican nomination race that the “unsure” voters gravitated more strongly to the Republican contest.

The Democratic Primary

In our likely voter estimation, 78 percent of the respondents planning to vote in the Democratic primary favored Sanders, in contrast to 13 percent for Clinton; 9 percent were unsure at the time, which is not an unreasonable stance two weeks prior to a primary election. Adjusting for the fact that voters do not cast “unsure” ballots, distributing the “unsure” voters proportionately results in 86 percent for Sanders and 14 percent for Clinton, estimates that perfectly reflect the actual share of the vote for the Democratic candidates.

The Republican Primary

Given the volatility of the Republican race in the 12 days from when the VPR poll came out of the field until Vermonters cast their votes, it is not surprising that the estimates of where voters stood on February 17 did not mirror the final Republican vote tally. Using the same process of adjusting for the “unsure” voters (by distributing their votes among the candidates in proportion to the candidates’ share of the vote without “unsure” voters), our likely voter model had Donald Trump winning the Vermont Republican primary with 38 percent of the vote, nearly 6 percentage points higher than his actual share of the vote.

We estimated that Marco Rubio would place second with 17 percent of the vote (adjusted from 15 percent), and John Kasich would finish third with 16 percent of the vote (adjusted from 14 percent). Instead, Kasich finished with 30 percent of the vote and Rubio with 19 percent

The difference between where we had Trump and Rubio on February 17th and where they finished on March 1 is affected by a great deal of campaign dynamics, but the estimates were well within our poll’s sampling error for the subset of Republican voters (MoE = +/- 9 percentage points). Kasich’s final vote tally, however, fell outside of the margin of error; his final vote share was nearly 14 percentage points higher than where we had his estimate on February 17.

The differences between estimates made 12 days before the election and the final election tallies in the Vermont Republican contest can be attributed to two major factors:

The breadth of the field changed as candidates dropped out of the race, and

The efforts that the Kasich campaign put into Vermont changed Kasich’s prospects after the poll was out of the field.

By the time Vermonters cast their ballots the field had winnowed down to five active candidates; most of the Vermonters who supported Bush (5 percent), Christie (3 percent) and others (2 percent) sought out other candidates to support. Additionally, the 12 percent “unsure”—which we distributed proportionately to candidates based on their poll support—were not likely to go to the candidates who had suspended their campaigns. It is not inconceivable that some of the Bush and Christie support would go to the remaining governor in the race, John Kasich, but that would not explain all of Kasich’s gains.

Between the conclusion of the poll and election day, Kasich was the only candidate to visit Vermont, not once but twice (February 27th and 29th), including a visit to the more densely Republican Rutland County. Given that Vermont is the size of a small congressional district (the average size being 710,767, about 14% bigger than the population of Vermont), it is possible to make measurable gains in a short time because a candidate can reach a large proportion of the voters without the effort and resources it would take in a larger state.

Campaigns matter, and their activity can move voters. To believe otherwise, we could conduct a poll at the outset of candidate announcements and use those results to predict winners. But to do so would be a ridiculous proposition. In primary elections, voters cannot fall back on the decision shortcut of party preference, so candidates have more room to sway voters. The dynamics of the campaigns make it difficult to mirror election day results days before an election when voters have time to change or make up their minds.

The VPR poll asked respondents if they were likely to change their minds before election day. Overall, a majority (59 percent) said that their mind was made up, but among those planning to vote in the Republican primary, a majority (55 percent) said that they might change their mind, as illustrated in Figure 1. The odds are very high that many did in fact cast their ballot for someone other than the candidate they supported in the poll.

Figure 1. Likelihood of changing one’s mind about which candidate respondents will support, by choice of primary

In general, we believe that the VPR poll and the likely voter model employed did an effective job demonstrating public views at that time; in fact, those results mirrored the final outcome in the Democratic primary, where voters had mostly settled on their choices earlier than in the Republican primary. Differences between poll results and the ultimate election results in the Republican primary are easily attributed to the Kasich campaign efforts and the changing landscape in the Republican race in the aftermath of the South Carolina and Nevada primaries.

On March 1st, 2016, Town Meeting Day in the Green Mountain State, Vermonters will cast their ballots in the Democratic or Republican primary races. In addition, 12 other states will make their preferences known—a total of five caucuses and nine primaries. It’s Super Tuesday, the first official date to kick off the nominating process for the parties, with exception made for the first four states.

On the Republican side, 641 delegates are up from grabs on Super Tuesday, making up 26 percent of the total delegate count.

For the Democrats, 907 pledged delegates will be allocated, making up 22 percent of the pledged delegates and 19 percent of the total number of delegates, pledged and unpledged.

Tracking the presidential primary preferences in Vermont since the VPR Poll did not detect any change in support in either Party. While New Hampshire appeared to affect Vermonter’s preferences, there is no indication that Nevada or South Carolina have had comparable effects. Sanders’ win in New Hampshire seemed to shore up some support, but not a great deal more than he had before that primary victory. Most Sanders voters were going to support their senator no matter what happened in New Hampshire.

The effect of New Hampshire in the Republican side is seen in the figure below.

In February 2013, majorities of adults in Vermont supported requiring background checks for all guns sales (75 percent), banning the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines or clips (66 percent), banning further sales of assault weapons (61 percent), and making it illegal to own an assault weapon (54 percent). Of course, like any poll, the results should be seen as a snapshot of public opinion in that time, reflecting the mood following one of the most horrific mass shooting the nation had seen.

What was interesting about these data were Vermonters’ reporting that the Sandy Hook tragedy had not caused them to change their views on gun control; only 19 percent of respondents said that their views had changed sin the Sandy Hook shooting. Even if social desirability bias is a factor—pushing some respondents to say that the event only two months earlier had not changed their views in order to sound more firm in their position—it is hard to imagine that social desirability bias could account for the overwhelming majority (79 percent) who said that their views had not been altered. Drilling deeper into the data, it is apparent that there is no statistical relationship between reporting that one’s views have changed and their support for background checks.

On the other hand, there is a statistically significant relationship between one’s views on banning future sales of assault weapons and whether or not one’s views have changed since the Sandy Hook shooting; those who said that their views had changed were much more likely to support banning future sales of assault weapons (p < 0.001) and making it illegal to own an assault weapon (p < 0.001). Additionally, those who said that their views had changed since Sandy Hook also were much more likely to support requiring strict reporting by mental health professionals to the national instant check system.

Figure 1. Support for banning the further sale of assault weapons, by whether views on gun control have changed since the Sandy Hook shootings (Feb. 2013)

In sum, although the February 2013 poll by the Castleton Polling Institute only represented a snap shot of views at that time, many of the views expressed cannot be dismissed simply as a reaction to a horrific event; 79 percent of Vermonters told pollsters that their views were set before the event occurred.

In his November 13, 2015, New York Times column, David Brooks wrote about the future of the GOP and the party’s positions on immigration. Brooks writes, “The demographics of this country are changing. This will be the last presidential election cycle in which the G.O.P., in its current form, has even a shot at winning the White House.” The GOP’s base is older and far less racially and ethnically diverse than the population as a whole. So Brooks begins his column with the question for his fellow Republicans, “Are we as a party willing to champion the new America that is inexorably rising around us, or are we the receding roar of an old America that is never coming back?” (New York Times online, November 13, 2015).

Like the Republican base, Vermont as a state is older and aging and is far less diverse than the rest of America. And yet, Vermonters—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike—would likely respond to Brooks’ question that they will champion the new America. As Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin reaffirms the state’s willingness to accept refugees from Syria, even while some of his fellow governors are expressing obstinate refusals, Vermonters generally express openness to immigrants, minorities, and, to use the colloquial term, flat-landers from everywhere.

Vermont was an early adopter of same-sex unions. In a June 2013 poll by the Castleton Polling Institute, 66 percent of Vermonters expressed the view that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, and 74 percent thought that same-sex couples should receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. These views represent a sense of comfort with, rather than reaction against, changing times.

A Seven Days article from January 15, 2014, discussed the process of resettling refugees from all over the world in Chittenden County (Kevin J. Kelley, “Twenty-Five Years and 6,300 People Later: A Vermont Refugee Report”). The article proclaims that the settlement of people from Africa and Asia into the largely homogeneous communities of Vermont had come about with very little xenophobic or reactionary activity. “Vermont is regarded as such a welcoming place that many immigrants move here from elsewhere in the U.S.,” notes the deputy director of the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, according to the article.

In a recent talk at Castleton University (October 13, 2015), Lieutenant Governor and gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott suggested that Vermont would benefit from an influx of immigrants who are younger than our average age. On that same page, Governor Jim Douglas has said that at the base of the problems facing Vermont is demographics. The same can be said of the GOP, but the responses to what Brooks calls “the new America” from GOP presidential contenders, contrasts significantly with the responses from Vermonters who embrace the new.

To the rest of the country, Vermont is a liberal, hippie—bordering on socialist—enclave of New England. If Americans know anything about Vermont apart from Ben and Jerry’s and Cabot cheeses, it is that we have pushed the envelope for liberal causes: same-sex marriage, single payer healthcare, and now a flirtation with legalizing recreational marijuana, not by a referendum but by the standard legislative process.

The politicos of the nation will know Vermont for its current congressional delegation, including an establishment Democrat and an Independent in the Senate and an affable representative willing to work across party lines in the House. In other words, those in the know have a more balanced sense of Vermont politics. We have sent to Washington moderate Republicans such as Robert Stafford and James Jeffords. And when the political winds changed, these legislators stayed moored to their moderate positions.

While to the rest of the nation, Vermont appears to be a solidly blue state, we have since 1962 had competitive two-party battles for the highest executive office, with the current governor winning twice (of three elections) by a very slim margin, and neither time carrying a majority of the popular vote.

Vermont is a two-party state. Republicans may be in the minority, but they are an active minority with a potential of taking back the reins of government.

In a recent poll by Castleton University’s polling institute, the highest-ranking Republican in the state, Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, received the highest approval rating overall with 71 percent rating him favorably and only 23 percent unfavorably. Among those of his own party, Scott’s numbers are fabulous: 77 percent favorable and only 4 percent unfavorable. Yet even among Democrats and Independents who lean Democrat, Scott’s favorables are 66 percent to just 12 percent unfavorable (an astonishing 54 percent net favorability rating).

In addition, Scott has pledged to run a campaign focused on the state’s economy, which a plurality of Vermonters cite as the most important problem facing the state.

Scott’s popularity, as well as the continued strength of GOP gubernatorial candidates, is no fluke. In his memoir, The Vermont Way, former-Governor Jim Douglas argues for civility in politics and focusing on issues over partisan advantage. Commenting on the hyper-partisanship in Washington, Douglas writes, “It is profoundly unfortunate, not only because most Americans, I believe, don’t care much for the political extremes and would rather see elected officials achieve results, but also because blind allegiance to party does not lead to the policies that make for a stronger, more prosperous nation” (p. 324).

Phil Scott is clearly within the Douglas mold; he has a reputation for putting policy above politics, and he has earned respect from both sides of the aisle for this practice, as our poll results indicate. As the leader of the minority party, this bodes well for those who wish to move beyond partisanship.

Nationally, Democrats and Republicans have clear differences in what they believe the role of government should be. And clearly, these differences run deep. It is good for America to have competitive parties—to have clear choices in the direction of the nation—but because we do not have a parliamentary system where one party gets its chance to control the entire government for a period of time, once elections have played out, the parties must work together enough to govern effectively. This is what we do in Vermont largely because the Vermont Republicans continue to govern even in the minority. They not given up on government, as so many have at the national level, and they have continued to participate and make practical changes where possible.

Although Vermont is not without partisan bickering, and as Douglas notes in his memoir, partisanship is on the rise in the Green Mountain state, it is nowhere near the level seen in the nation’s capital. In large part, that is due in part to GOP leaders in Vermont who have not turned their backs on government for partisan advantage or ideological purity and to Vermont voters who continue to look past partisanship in selecting leaders.